Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Operating Systems Databases Software Upgrades BSD

Dragonfly BSD 3.2 Released 85

An anonymous reader writes "Dragonfly BSD recently announced the release of version 3.2 of their operating system. Improvements include: USB4BSD, a second-generation USB stack; merging of a GSoC project to provide CPU topology awareness to the scheduler, giving a nice boost for hyperthreading Intel CPUs; and last but not least, a new largely rewritten scheduler. Some background is in order for the last one. PostgreSQL 9.3 will move from SysV shared memory to mmap for its shared memory needs. It turned out that the switch much hurts its performance on the BSDs. Matthew Dillon was fast to respond with a search for bottlenecks and got the performance up to par with Linux."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dragonfly BSD 3.2 Released

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    have they fixed the ssh port bug? They've ignored it for years.
  • Too many dimwits (Score:1, Insightful)

    by fnj ( 64210 )

    16 posts and every fucking one of them is an anonymous fucking coward dipshit.

    • by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Saturday November 03, 2012 @11:35PM (#41869931) Homepage

      Because this site is a giant linux circlejerk. I remember the good old days when FreeBSD ran linux binaries faster than linux itself.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 04, 2012 @01:15AM (#41870319)

    1) hammer is beyond awesome, it's inspired. you owe it to yourself to live with dragonfly for a week or two for this reason alone.
    2) the whole thing is pretty freaking snappy compared to freebsd (which itself is no slowpoke)
    3) hardware support is patchy, you might need to hang onto that old nic/sas/raid card
    4) linux emulation is not supported when running a 64-bit dragonfly system
    5) otherwise, it's just like any other sane BSD.

    my job forces me to run binary only linux crap so 4) rules out a wholesale move to dragonfly, but IMHO it is the BSD of choice for anyone with enough platform independence to seriously consider a BSD in the first place.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Thanks, this sums it up quite well. Id like to add that swapcache is pretty awesome, too.

      Also I think that DFBSD is one of the very few open source OS projects worth watching closely. They
      not only innovate, but still manage to keep a clean bsd OS. And while being small they are a very nice
      and helpful community.

      Way to go DFBSD!

    • by aliquis ( 678370 )

      But the Linux people got btrfs so HAMMER and ZFS isn't all that much to long for any more.

      • by nikolas ( 35223 )

        while many features of ZFS (and Hammer) are included in btrfs too, Hammer (specifically Hammer 2) has design goals that go way beyond those of ZFS (I believe it is going to be a fully fledged cluster FS). So there is something to wait for.

        And I am still hoping that theiy will pursue their single-system-image design goal eventually.

        • by aliquis ( 678370 )

          What does single system image design mean?

          I only really followed DragonflyBSD early and I know their focus has been towards multi core and clusters from the beginning. I guess for me personally the point is rather that I thought ZFS was cool but I use a desktop machine and by now I could use btrfs and get about the same effect so by now Solaris, FreeBSD or Linux doesn't matter much for me in that regard. Or well, DragonflyBSD in this case :)

          It's always interesting to read about it though. (And I think it wo

          • by nikolas ( 35223 )

            SSI would be when multiple connected computer running an instance of, say, dragonfly bsd, can act like a single (multi-user and multi-tasking) computer. Tasks will migrate to any processor core in the cluster (and ideally factor in the cost of migration over network).

            Similar to what openmosix did for linux ages ago - and very different from the infamous beowulf cluster.

            By the way - Hammer does not only do simple snapshots but it does them automatically in intervals. So if you use it with samba or nfs you ge

            • by aliquis ( 678370 )

              But ZFS snapshots every modification and got de-duplication to?

              Though from people in say #pcbsd or whatever it's called it seem like the memory requirements for using de-dup is massive?

              btrfs doesn't snapshot the whole time but just when you tell it to?

              The idea for me was to switch this usb flash drive to btrfs since zypper doesn't have the undo feature of yum but it can do undos using snapshots if you use btrfs.

              I guess the yum alternative may be safer for your data though.

              Guess I'm going away from the subje

              • by siDDis ( 961791 )

                Hammer can do deduplication with minimal memory requirements. For example only 512MB ram would still give a responsive and fast system. Hammer deduplication doesn't take a hard hit on performance like ZFS does, as ZFS dedup data in realtime while Hammer does it with a CRON job.

                • by aliquis ( 678370 )

                  On the other hand just think about how much better dd if=/dev/zero of=file bs=1048576 count=10240 would perform on ZFS?!

                  (Or maybe not, what do I know?)

                  • Hammer linear write performance is pretty good, since it is somewhat akin to a log-structured filesystem.

            • Similar to what openmosix did for linux ages ago

              No, similar to what OpenSSI did for Linux years ago [].

              openmosix was much less SSI [].

  • BSD-style shared memory via mmap is slower on BSDs than SysV shared memory on the same system? Ah, the irony...
  • by xuvetyn ( 89257 )
    when's BSD gonna develop a (decent) desktop distro?!

Can anyone remember when the times were not hard, and money not scarce?